64 thoughts on “Discussion Archive”

There’s quite a lot of mixed old stuff here. Could it be time to clear it, or store it somewhere? There have been no comments for two months now; that may be because it’s too wearing to read from the beginning.

If you look at the recent posts it’s apparent that both Sally and I regarded the article as news; hardly surprising – it’s in the “news” section. Maybe we should have an “opinion” section?

Fortunately, we are both capable of recognising propaganda: Sally doesn’t mind it, I don’t want it. Let’s let Robert decide whether this article stays or goes, and hopefully have agreed rules in place the next time something like this occurs.

Thanks to both for the debate which in general terms of policy is welcome. I agree that the email extract is biased and partisan and have amended the post with a preamble. I don’t want to remove it before we have more opinions on the principle but of course will defer to a ruling from the chairman.
I do however credit our members with the intelligence to differentiate between news and opinion.
Gren

Agree that it’s propaganda (the subject matter is irrelevant). What you say about the issue itself may or may not be true, the point I’m making is that the article is unbalanced and party political. I think we should expect a higher standard; I, for one, do not wish to be part of the spin machine (any colour). It doesn’t stop at politics, the SRRA really shouldn’t be promoting anyone’s special interests.

We have a situation here where there is no policy. I think the article should come down, you disagree, and Gren holds the keys. Until such time as the committee can formulate guidelines, I’d like to call on the chairman to decide if it should stay – would you support me in that?

I understand the political point you’re making, Andy. And you’re correct in thinking that I’m more comfortable carrying anti-Gove propaganda than I would be at giving a platform to the English Defence League. Others may well disagree.
But I think the main point here is the relevance of the story.
As I understand it, children in our area have three state-provided options for sixth form and two of them would be ‘affected’ by the outcome of the free school proposal at BHASVIC. This is a story about our local schools and children’s education. If that’s not a subject relevant to a residents’ association then I don’t know what is.
The March for England and the English Defence League’s support for the apparent (national?)police appeal for help identifying trouble-makers is somewhat different. (Why do they always choose to march in Brighton – does anyone know?)
I agree that it would be ideal to also carry a factual story on each issue that puts forward the pros and cons and explains the back story. But that would require somebody – usually a journalist – putting in the time to research and write it. Unless someone is prepared to do that or pay for it, we will inevitably have information submitted to our website by interested parties.
I don’t mind that as long as it’s made clear. There’s a place for opinion, too.

Whilst “While the article currently uploaded represents one point of view, we would of course encourage its supporters to reply” is a very reasonable position, it implies that our site is biased. Surely it would be better to stick to spin-free factual articles.

Personally I welcome news from a slightly wider area than that immediately defined by SRRA. I am interested in what is going on in Brighton & Hove but don’t have time to trawl through various websites or read the Argus. I would appreciate, therefore, this site keeping me updated on local news. I realise this might not be a popular view and will of course support whatever guidelines the meeting agrees on.
The BHASVIC field issue is of interest for many reasons – the future of education in the local area and, of course, BHASVIC is the most likely place for our children to attend sixth form. While the article currently uploaded represents one point of view, we would of course encourage its supporters to reply.

Every piece of the universe affects every other piece; on that basis anything can go on the site. I suggest that we spend a bit of time at the next meeting establishing some guidelines as to what should appear on these pages.

In my opinion the BHASVIC field piece is a highly partisan and party political and does not belong on our website.

Dear All
I posted the update on the BHASVIC field that Andy refers to https://southdownrise.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/update-about-the-proposal-to-build-new-school-on-bhasvic-field/ along with the update on the Lewes Road traffic scheme this morning as I thought they were relevant to our overall local concerns. I accept that the BHASVIC Field is the more controversial and if the consensus is that it’s not relevant to us or too partisan I’m happy to remove it.
I would be surprised if the proposal didn’t affect some of our members and if the site is restricted to purely local issues there will be times when the news pages remain static for weeks, please let me have your opinions.
Thanks
Gren Nation

I hope readers will join in with Streets in Bloom. It is quick, easy and cheap to turn a tree bed outside your house into a micro garden. It cost me £17 (£3 for edging, £4 for compost and £10 for 36 bedding plants, all from Asda). It would be great to see this spread through the area. A little laminated explanation label encourages other people to join in too. Available from SRRA.

I hope readers will consider joining in with Streets in Bloom. It is quick, easy and cheap to do. I planted up a tree bed outside my house for £17 from Asda! £3 for edging, £4 for 70 litres of compost and £10 for 36 bedding plants. It makes the street look like a garden! Just imagine if all the tree beds were adopted.I’ll send a photo.

You’ll see we have the beginnings of a new ‘lost and found’ facility on the website. A very useful community tool, I think. As the first contributor to it, I’d like to thank SRRA for helping me to track down my cat, Solo.

Flyers will also appear around the neighbourhood tomorrow. Please do contact me if you spot him.

In case anyone else is puzzled about the procedure regarding the Traffic Orders here’s an email from Cllr Pete West in response to my enquiry:

Dear Gren

I do agree that the process is somewhat confusing.
What has happened so far is that the council has consulted residents on the proposed scheme. The consultation outcomes and any adjustments to the proposals were then reported to committee, and the committee agreed to implementation of the scheme. However, we now have to comply with the expectations of Traffic Regulations which require the scheme to be formally but briefly consulted upon by posting adverts. We have to do this for big and small changes like double lining, disabled bays, etc. The committee will examine the responses and take particular note of fresh arguments not previously considered in making the decision on the scheme.
It’ll all be over soon and a final decision will be made. Meanwhile do please encourage your neighbours to respond to the proper addresses given. I will of course forward all correspondence to officers too as responses does have to be collated and reported by officers.
With best wishes
Pete